Exercising with a robotic exoskeleton can improve memory and gait in people with Parkinson’s disease by facilitating progressive exercise intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People with Parkinson’s disease (PwPD) can benefit from progressive high-intensity exercise facilitated with a lower-extremity exoskeleton, but the mechanisms explaining these benefits are unknown. We explored the relationship between exercise intensity progression and memory and gait outcomes in PwPD who performed 8 weeks (2 × per week) of progressive exercise with and without a lower-extremity powered exoskeleton, as the planned exploratory endpoint analysis of an open-label, parallel, pilot randomized controlled trial. Adults 50–85 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of PD participated. Twenty-seven participants randomized to exercise with (Exo = 13) or without (Nxo = 14) the exoskeleton were included in this exploratory endpoint analysis. Detailed exercise logs were kept and actigraphy was used to measure activity count*min−1 (ACPM) during all exercise sessions. Only the Exo group were able to progressively increase their ACPM over the entire 8-week intervention, whereas the Nxo group plateaued after 4 weeks. Exercise intensity progression correlated with change in the memory sub-scale of the SCOPA-COG and change in gait endurance from the 6MWT, consistent with the prevailing hypotheses linking high-intensity interval exercise to improved muscle and brain function via angiogenic and neurotrophic mechanisms. Facilitating high-intensity exercise with advanced rehabilitation technology is warranted for improving memory and gait endurance in PwPD. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 03583879 (7/10/2018).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".